It's a step too far even for now. America isn't going to want this war when it's literally tearing itself apart and Britain isn't going to be eager to rush into this war, even if there's an extra push. Maybe if it were one of numerous things with increased focus and higher tensions all piling up, then it could be a spark, but even a fight over a pig might be a step too far then.
'1859 Pig War' leads to an Actual War Between the British Empire and United States?
- Thread starter Iron_Lord
- Start date
It's a step too far even for now. America isn't going to want this war when it's literally tearing itself apart and Britain isn't going to be eager to rush into this war, even if there's an extra push. Maybe if it were one of numerous things with increased focus and higher tensions all piling up, then it could be a spark, but even a fight over a pig might be a step too far then.
Given what the U.S. was able to organize in short order in OTL, yes.
Even in WW1, the German high command were, if not actively looking for war, at least glad of an opportunity to take Russia down a peg or two before the latter got too strong to challenge German pre-eminence in Europe.
If the US hates being forced to outlaw slavery so much, why would it accept such terms after only a relatively minor defeat?
Plus, why would the North be so bitter over a few shells? Plenty of countries have suffered far worse in war (large areas of multiple European cities were basically flattened during WW2, for example) without swearing generations-long enmity against their opponents. For that matter, the US itself had already suffered worse in the War of 1812 (what with its capital being burnt down), but relations with the UK got back to normal pretty quickly after the peace treaty. Unless the Brits start massacring people or impose a really humiliating peace, I don't see the US holding a long-term grudge, certainly not enough for them to jump into a world war six decades later just to spite the British.
SpaceOrbisGaming
Banned
I have to agree here. Any war started over a pig isn't likely to see much in the way of killing large swaths of the US. population. Odds are after a few weeks tops the war ends and life goes back to what it was. 60 years on most of not all the people who would have taken part would be dead so why should we care?
I can see why President Lincoln might be butterflied away, but... Buchanan getting us into a war for a stupid reason and the US's quick shellacking in it is going to be another nail in his coffin. The same reasons for the rise of the GOP are still there, and amplified. It may not be called the Republican party and the people are likely to be different, but I would think that a new party will still rise out of the ashes.
Yeah, about the most serious long-term consequence I envisage is that the British get the San Juan Islands, and whilst I'm sure they're very nice, I can't really see America fighting a world war just to get them back.
Incidentally, I was looking on the Wikipedia article on the Pig War, and found this:
So maybe the idea that Pig War --> South taking the opportunity to secede does have some truth to it after all.
From a practical standpoint if war is declared with Britain in 1859 the spare armaments of the country (outside some token material to defend a few important hubs) are headed to bases and forts near the Canadian border. An attempt to redirect them in service of a secessionist movement would be impossible to hide. Northern industry will come to life and spit out rivers of arms as well.
From a political standpoint war secession becomes harder not easier with a war on. A great many officers who did side with the South because they felt they were being offered a binary choice of fight for or against their home state will be more then happy to have a third option of staying in New York or Canada fighting the British.
Last edited:
SpaceOrbisGaming
Banned
My view is with a war ongoing the south never leaves the union thus no Civil War/ second American Revolution. The fact is both the US and would have been the CSA would be fighting side-by-side. Fighting beside one another pulls people closer together. Also no matter how long the war lasts I don't see us jumping into another war for at least a few years. By which point technological advancements would make the institution of slavery obsolete so it should die off on its own. It only survived due to economic incentives once the cost makes it so housing slaves losing money it dies.
Fair point re: spare armaments being moved north, although I think you're understating the amount that would need to be left down South -- IOTL, as I recall, the CSA had something like 75,000 men defending its coast from Union attacks, and they'd need a whole lot of gunpowder, ammunition, canons, etc., to be able to put up an effective defence.
As for Northern industry coming to life, IOTL the Union had a massive shortfall between the number of guns it could produce and the number needed to equip its expanded army, and it wasn't until 1864 or so that it became self-sufficient in armaments. So even if the US goes into total war mode on day 1 of the conflict (which is pretty unlikely), it would still have severe difficulty trying to make enough for an army large enough to conquer Canada.
Sometimes it does. Other times it has the opposite effect, particularly if one part of the country feels like they're not going to benefit from victory, or if the high command is perceived as incompetent and throwing away lives and resources for no gain (Russia in WW1 is a good example). So whilst a Pig War might see an initial rally-round-the-flag effect, if the war goes on for a long time and the Americans aren't clearly doing well, I'd expect the conflict to exacerbate sectional tensions.
Ficboy
Banned
To be honest, Britain has all the advantages in an escalated version of the Pig War: Industry, Manpower and Money. And that's not getting into its navy which was a major part of its military and the vast tracts of land they controlled across the world. America would lose badly in such a conflict and would have to give up a portion of the Washington Territory among other things. Since this entire conflict would have a bizarre casus belli and there would be next to no real gains whatsoever it might lead to sectional tensions as Fabius Maximus pointed out.
Last edited:
The UK does have an edge in a lot of areas, but a lot of that is from the Empire, and a bunch of Punjabi subsistence farmers aren't going to help out too much in a battle outside Detroit. Likewise the U.S. does have serious potential issues with the southern states. So one can sling the "oh but this problem is a golden bullet" both ways.
The way I see it is this: the largest economy in the world (U.K.) is going to duke it out with the second largest economy in the world (U.S.A.). The two powers are functionally split by an ocean (yes I know Canada exists, but it's not going to be a major contributor or men or materiel, it's more of a large beachhead). The U.K., as has been claimed here, is going to win through terror bombing the U.S.A.'s major cities by naval means, even though the ocean-adjacent urban population of the U.S.A. is maybe 20% of the population. I can't imagine the U.K. population is going to be thrilled by this war, being an ocean away, with no real way to win, and fought for uncertain aims. The U.S. population will probably be galvanized by fighting a "defensive" war on home turf, but it's going to take some solid blows while it ramps up.
Is anyone else getting circa-2003 Iraq vibes of how this conflict is going to go, but instead of Iraq, the U.S. tries to invade China? I really cannot fathom how this wouldn't devolve into an earth-shattering mess of a quagmire.
Also, has any major power ever smashed a near-peer on another continent without massive advantages in technology, geographic allies or industrial superiority? I can't think of one.
Ficboy
Banned
Well it will worsen Anglo-American relations for a while. Britain will take some territory from the Washington Territory of the United States who likewise would already be dealing with the issues of slavery, economic laws and the Constitution which will inevitably lead to the Civil War. Plus, Canada would be ground zero for an escalated version of the Pig War since it more or less started there and they would comprise the majority of British volunteers fighting the Americans thus it would define the national identity of the former much like the War of 1812 and the Lower Canada Rebellion of 1837.
Wendell said:
Given what the U.S. was able to organize in short order in OTL, yes.
Why would that make you chuckle? In July 1861 the combined Union, and Confederate armies deployed in the Virginia/Maryland Theater numbered about 88,000 men. Add to that the 11,000 men of the Pennsylvania Reserve Division which helped cover Washington, after the Union defeat at Bull Run, and you have nearly 100,000 troops mobilized in a 3 month period. Granted these were green troops, but with a war starting in say September of 1859 these troops could be trained during the winter, and be ready for offensive operations in Canada by the Spring of 1860.
Thousands of other Union, and Confederate troops were raised in the opening months of the ACW in Missouri, and Kentucky. They maneuvered, and fought several small, but important actions in the Western Theater. That combined army would've concentrated in Michigan, and Minnesota, to defend against any moves from Western Canada. It's clear that the United States could assemble very large land forces in a short period of time.
Given what the U.S. was able to organize in short order in OTL, yes.
Why would that make you chuckle? In July 1861 the combined Union, and Confederate armies deployed in the Virginia/Maryland Theater numbered about 88,000 men. Add to that the 11,000 men of the Pennsylvania Reserve Division which helped cover Washington, after the Union defeat at Bull Run, and you have nearly 100,000 troops mobilized in a 3 month period. Granted these were green troops, but with a war starting in say September of 1859 these troops could be trained during the winter, and be ready for offensive operations in Canada by the Spring of 1860.
Thousands of other Union, and Confederate troops were raised in the opening months of the ACW in Missouri, and Kentucky. They maneuvered, and fought several small, but important actions in the Western Theater. That combined army would've concentrated in Michigan, and Minnesota, to defend against any moves from Western Canada. It's clear that the United States could assemble very large land forces in a short period of time.
Sorry, maybe I was unclear: I have no idea what sequence of events could even conceivably lead to a British "victory." Nor an American "victory" for that matter. Neither side can truly hit at the other's center of gravity - the U.S. physically can't get to the British Isles, and the British have the combined ground forces to militarily occupy... Michigan? Michigan and up-state New York? Those two are already larger than the whole of the British Isles in terms of territory. So if you have two populations hostile to each other, fighting with no clear path to victory, that's what I'm saying is a quagmire. I don't know how you took that to mean "Britain will take some territory from the Washington Territory of the United States."
Again, has any industrial nation ever smashed another industrial nation without a massive disparity in industry, in-theater allies, or technology? A disparity which certainly does not exist in this case.
Ficboy
Banned
There's Maine and the adjacent states of New Hampshire and Vermont which the Anglo-Canadians would likely invade alongside Michigan and upstate New York. Any fighting between Britain and America would be confined to the border with Canada.
They would still be defending the coasts. The major port cities had large masonry, brick forts protecting them. The RN would have as little luck trying to destroy them as the Union did. There were vast stores of heavy cannon, and powder already stored in the forts, and federal arsenals. Some of it was destroyed by Union forces, but what the Confederates captured was enough to build their army, and navy with. The United States doesn't need as big an army as they had in the ACW for a war with the UK/Canada in 1859-60. Please define not doing well for the Americans? What would define not doing well for the British? Just what are each sides war aims? The election of 1860 set off the secession crisis, a war would focus the nations attention on something else. Buchannan might even get re-nominated, and get a second term.
The Americans could only hope the Anglo/Canadians invade the United States first. It simplifies all their problems.
Honestly, I am not sure what you're arguing here. Yes, the initial battles will be fought in the border regions of the two countries, how the British will invade the 5 states you've listed with an active duty army of ~150,000 is very much stretching credibility. In geographic terms that's equivalent to invading northern France, Britain, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands with about a corps assigned to each. What will these forces do? What key areas will they occupy? How will they avoid a defeat in detail? How will they maintain their supply lines? What strategic goals do they pursue that helps the war?
I'm going to echo the ending sentiment here. So far I have read that the British forces will pursue naval-based terror bombings of cities, and geographically dispersed, unfocused ground occupations. They will do this assuming the war will be short and the Americans will quickly fold. I ask, when have assumptions like this *ever* proven true?
In the Crimean War the British needed the in-theater alliance with the Ottomans and the French to provide the majority of the troops in order to get Russia, a much poorer and less technologically capable country than the U.S. to give up only Southern Bessarabia. If the British could only get that done a few years before this war, how would they take any land from the U.S. a much richer and more industrially modern country, when the U.K. has only Canada as an "ally" (they're kind of the same country, and I'm not trying to quibble about definitions) and is fighting at a much larger distance?